Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
A motion for leave to amend a complaint may be denied if the proposed amendment is devoid of merit (Sharaby v Gamel, 113 A.D.2d 748). We agree with the Supreme Court that the proposed amendment, which seeks to add Guard Hill Development Corporation as a defendant, is devoid of merit. The plaintiffs' claim herein rests upon a brokerage agreement entered into solely between them and the defendant Joseph Cioccolanti, individually. Absent any contention that the corporate form was ignored (see, Billy v Consolidated Mach. Tool Corp., 51 N.Y.2d 152, 163, rearg denied 52 N.Y.2d 829), we see no basis upon which a recovery could be had against Guard Hill Development Corporation, a distinct legal entity, which did not even exist at the time the agreement was allegedly being performed. Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. Mangano, J.P., Brown, Lawrence, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.